Who really cares if their BIOS is open source or not? Why does it matter? Are the designs used to make his laptop case open source as well? I doubt it.
Seriously though, rms, is one of the principal founders of the free software philosophy, and creator of the GPL, upon which some significant software has been licensed. He's consistent in his vision, which is freedom, and can reliably be looked to for guidance on topics regarding those freedoms.
Can you identify even three people who have had as significant impact on free (as in speech) software?
[edit - I don't mean people like linus, who create great software, but people who develop/evangelize free software philosophies - Theo De Raadt comes to mind - there aren't too many others that I can think of right away]
People are moving to a web based architecture all the time. The amount of software people actually download and install is reducing, so to some extent the whole idea of OSS for most people (I believe) is becoming less important.
Meanwhile Richard Stallman doesn't even use the web.
I just don't see it as that relevant anymore.
There are of course a freaking huge number of problems with the idea of open-sourcing the entirety of many website backends. I think there can be great discussion though on various models. GitHub offering web hosting instead of just repo hosting seems like a possibility.
I agree, but is that really a bad thing? We all have to make money somehow. I'd rather website owners had real incentive to please their users, and being able to make money is a good incentive.
I don't see how open source can really be relevant on the web. If facebook want to do something to drive users away, or ristrict users freedom, that's up to them. If they do it enough, someone else will setup a rival website that pleases users better. How does open sourcing fit into this? I don't think it does. Most website is simple enough that you don't need free source code. Any one of us could clone facebook if we had enough time and determination.
Open sourcing is certainly a nice thing to do, and I'm sure we'd be lost without our own favorite open source tools, but I think it makes less sense on the web.
As I've said before, I don't use X because it's open source, I use it because it's free, and there are people behind it who care.
I think that's all that matters really.
Like you, I would also rather that website owners had real incentives to please their users. I disagree on the solution: data lock-in _removes_ the website owner's incentive, instead they can just rely on the fact that you are stuck with them, rather than pleased with them.
We all have to make money somehow. I'd rather website owners had real incentive to please their users, and being able to make money is a good incentive.
I don't see how free data can really be relevant on the web. If facebook want to do something to drive users away, or ristrict users freedom, that's up to them. If they do it enough, someone else will setup a rival website that pleases users better. How does free data fit into this? I don't think it does. Most website is simple enough that you don't need free data. Any one of us could clone facebook's massive social network if we had enough time and determination. Letting users own their data is certainly a nice thing to do, and I'm sure we'd be lost without our own data, but I think it makes less sense on the web.
As I've said before, I don't use X because its data is free, I use it because it's free, and there are people behind it who care.
I think that's all that matters really.
In the case of a web application, this includes server side software. No matter what some vocal AGPL opponents here say, this opinion is not exclusively held by fundamentalists:
I think RMS is as close to certifiable as one can get, but the point of having source available for inspection is a very important one in certain contexts. A quick example, voting machines, for quite a while the electronic voting machine sources were completely closed and the companies fought in court from having to reveal the source. When the source was finally reviewed it was found to be a mess and could possibly turn an election one way or the other.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/135461/diebold_voting_machine...
This is one of those areas where Freedom and Free Software intersect in a way where Stallman's philosophy makes a heck of a lot of sense.
On the flip side, not browsing the web for "personal reasons" sounds like somebody who also has tin foil blocking all their windows.
Note that there is a distinction between open source and free software. I think it's important to not conflate the two, which I see a lot these days (in the real world :)
I predict 500 years from now people will remember him. They won't remember Bill Gates. Without googling try to recall who was the richest man in Rome?
All the best
That future is going to spring from this present, where N people use Windows and Word and know who Bill Gates is, but M people use emacs and know who Richard Stallman is?
I see a future where people just access 'the web', via whatever small thin client web browser device they like.
The vast majority of software will be running on servers, and end users won't really care if it's open source as long as it does what they want it to.
Real people use web browsers.
kidding aside, I don't buy it. P2P with local datastores will have a place. There's no way my tax returns will reside on google docs.
In the UK practically nothing tax related is done via paper forms any more, it's all done via their website. Works pretty well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan#Maximum_extent_of_the_Em...
If your average person doesn't know who he is today, I doubt that'll change to being more noteworthy in 500 years.
http://www.geeks.co.uk/12352-bill-gates-is-a-thief-and-a-don...